Search

A multidisciplinary team assessed five patients who alleged chronic medically unexplained multiorgan system symptoms described by idiopathic environmental intolerance allegedly triggered by exposure to solvents used in membrane roofing repair work on an office building. The event precipitated an incident of mass psychogenic illness (MPI). Treating physicians diagnosed irritant-associated vocal cord dysfunction (IVCD) and reactive airways disease syndrome (RADS) resulting from exposure. The authors conducted medical, psychological, and industrial hygiene evaluations. Air monitoring data for total volatile organic compounds obtained during the 2-day exposure period, measurements of emissions during membrane roofing repair at a similar site, mathematical modeling of air contaminant concentrations, and injection of tracer gas into the incident building revealed exposure levels well below those doses anticipated to cause clinical symptoms. There was no objective medical evidence validating symptoms. Review of the medical records indicated that the video laryngoscopy data, pulmonary function tests, and medical examinations relied upon by the treating physicians were inconsistent with published criteria for IVCD and RADS. Psychological evaluation identified defensiveness and self-serving misrepresentations of exaggerated health concerns associated with somatization and malingering. Each case had personality traits associated with at least one personality disorder. Social histories identified premorbid life events and stressors associated with distress. This is the first study to assess psychological predisposition, social interaction among the plaintiffs, and iatrogenic reinforcement of beliefs by diagnoses of pseudo-disorders associated with patient misrepresentation of exaggerated health concerns in an incident of MPI.

A new formulation of mometasone furoate (MF) for administration by dry powder inhaler (DPI) was evaluated for the treatment of asthma. A 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled dose-ranging study compared the efficacy and safety of three doses of MF DPI (100, 200 and 400 mcg b.i.d) with beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) 168 mcg b.i.d. administered by metered dose inhaler in 365 adult or adolescent patients being treated with inhaled glucocorticoids. The mean change from baseline to endpoint (last treatment visit) for forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1) was the primary efficacy variable. Secondary efficacy variables included other objective measures of pulmonary function [forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory flow 25-75% (FEV25-75%.) and peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR)] as well as subjective measures of therapeutic response (patients' daily evaluation of asthma symptoms and physicians' evaluation). At endpoint, all four active treatments were significantly more effective than placebo (P < 0.01) in improving FEV1 (MF DPI 5 to 7%, BDP 3%, placebo -6.6%) and all other measures of pulmonary function (FVC: MF DPI 4 to 5%, BDP 2%, placebo -4.7%; FEF25-75%: MF DPI 6 to 18%, BDP 7.5%, placebo -9.5%; PEFR (AM): MF DPI 5 to 10%, BDP 5.7%, placebo -7%). A consistent trend was observed for better improvement in patients treated with MF DPI 200 mcg b.i.d. than with MF DPI 100 mcg b.i.d., with no apparent additional benefit of MF DPI 400 mcg b.i.d. Results for the MF DPI 100 mcg b.i.d. and BDP 168 mcg b.i.d. treatment groups were similar. Patients' and physicians' subjective evaluations of symptoms found similar improvement in the MF DPI 200 and 400 mcg b.i.d. treatment groups, which were slightly better than that in the MF DPI 100 mcg b.i.d. group. Symptoms tended to worsen in the placebo group. MF DPI was well tolerated at all dose levels and the most frequently reported treatment-related adverse effects were headache, pharyngitis and oral candidiasis. No evidence of HPA-axis suppression was detected in any treatment group. In summary, all doses of MF DPI were well tolerated and significantly improved lung function and MF DPI 400 mcg (200 mcg b.i.d.) was the optimal dose in this study of patients with moderate persistent asthma.

Nedocromil sodium and cromolyn sodium are the only two currently available nonsteroid anti-inflammatory agents for treatment of asthma. Clinical differences between the two agents remain under continuous investigation with reports differentiating the two on the basis of atopy of the patient and reversibility of bronchoconstriction. This study investigated the efficacy of nedocromil sodium (4 mg, qid) for treatment of mild-to-moderate asthma in comparison to placebo using cromolyn sodium (2 mg, qid) as an active control treatment. Patients were primarily allergic asthmatics (with at least 15% reversibility) previously maintained on a regimen of regular bronchodilator therapy. During a 2-week run-in period, the patient's slow-release theophylline therapy was removed, and the patients were randomized to treatment after deterioration of asthma control (asthma symptom summary score of 3 for 7 of the 14 days). After 8 weeks of treatment, patients were returned to as occasion requires bronchodilator therapy, as per the 2-week baseline period. The results demonstrate that patients treated with nedocromil sodium showed statistically significant improvements during the primary time period (mean weeks 3 through 8) over placebo-treated patients as evidenced by all indexes of asthma symptoms, pulmonary function measures, and decreased bronchodilator reliance (p<0.05). Patients treated with cromolyn sodium demonstrated similar improvements over placebo-treated patients. Comparisons between nedocromil sodium and cromolyn sodium showed the two agents to be comparable in this group of primarily allergic patients with reversible disease. Between-group differences were noted for 3 of the 13 variables (nighttime asthma, FEV1, and forced expiratory flow rate between 25 % and 75% of the FVC) in favor of cromolyn sodium when the data were pooled during the primary time period. The number of patients missing 1 or more days from work/school/regular activity due to asthma was significantly fewer compared with placebo, and favoring nedocromil sodium over cromolyn sodium. No differences were observed among the three treatments for adverse events. This study demonstrated that in primarily allergic patients with reversible airways disease, nedocromil sodium and cromolyn sodium are both significantly more effective than placebo for treatment of mild-to-moderate asthma.

This study examined the ability of fluticasone propionate aerosol to reduce oral prednisone requirements in patients with severe asthma. Ninety-six patients dependent on oral prednisone were treated for 16 wk with placebo or fluticasone propionate aerosol (750 or 1,000 micrograms twice daily). Their dosage of oral prednisone was adjusted weekly according to predetermined criteria. A total of 69% and 88% of patients treated with fluticasone propionate 750 and 1,000 micrograms twice daily, respectively, compared with 3% of placebo-treated patients used no prednisone by the end of the study. In the fluticasone propionate groups, FEV1 and peak expiratory flow rates at the last evaluable visit/date improved and the number of night awakenings and symptomatic albuterol use declined relative to placebo values (p < 0.05). Patient-rated asthma symptoms improved in the groups receiving fluticasone propionate but not in the placebo group (p < 0.005). Fluticasone propionate aerosol was well-tolerated, and it improved some dimensions of health-related quality of life measured using a standard patient survey. Fluticasone propionate aerosol (750 or 1,000 micrograms twice daily) effectively and safely allowed most asthmatics dependent on oral corticosteroids to reduce or eliminate oral prednisone use while improving pulmonary function and quality of life.

Azelastine is a new oral antiasthma agent with bronchodilating and antiallergic properties. This 12-wk study compared azelastine (2, 4, 6, and 8 mg) and placebo given twice a day in asthmatics 12 to 60 yr of age requiring daily bronchodilator therapy. Patients were allowed albuterol aerosol, short-acting theophylline, and pseudoephedrine only as needed. The study was completed by 221 asthmatic subjects. No significant differences in symptoms, medication, or pulmonary function existed between groups at baseline. Analysis of the zero hour FEV1 before azelastine administration on eight occasions during the 12 wk of therapy indicated an increasing slope for azelastine 6 mg that was statistically different from that of placebo; similarly, the slope for azelastine 4 mg showed the same trend, but it did not reach statistical significance. All azelastine groups had significant reductions of as-needed medication after 1 wk; only in the 4-mg and 6-mg groups was this reduction sustained for 12 wk. Asthma symptom scores and peak expiratory flow measurements remained stable in the azelastine groups despite significant reductions in concomitant medication administration. Side effects were minor and included: altered taste (30.1 to 51.9%), drowsiness (6.0 to 16.9%), and dry mouth (3.8 to 6.1%). The occurrence of these adverse events decreased with time throughout the study.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Procaterol hydrochloride aerosol, a potent beta 2-adrenergic bronchodilator, was evaluated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study for efficacy and safety in 210 patients with documented mild to moderate reversible airway obstruction. Patients were randomized to receive procaterol in two inhalations (high dose) or one inhalation (low dose), 0.01 mg/inhalation, three times daily, or placebo. Pulmonary function tests were recorded at five and 30 minutes and hourly for eight hours after the first dose and following 1 and 2 weeks of treatment. Both doses of procaterol produced significantly greater improvement in PFTs at one hour and for up to seven hours after dosing compared with placebo (p less than 0.05). Mean percent increases in FEV1 were 35% in the high-dose group and 29% in the low-dose group at week 2. The high-dose group showed no loss of duration of bronchodilation with continued dosing. Improvement in PFTs and peak flow rates was significantly greater in the high-dose than in the low-dose group (p less than 0.05). Tremor was the most frequent side effect. Procaterol had no effect on electrocardiograms, heart rate, blood pressure, or clinical laboratory tests. The high dose of procaterol aerosol was shown to be an effective and well-tolerated bronchodilator with a rapid onset and long duration of action.

This study of 183 ambulatory patients with steroid-dependent asthma was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of nebulized bitolterol mesylate solution (0.2%) compared to isoproterenol hydrochloride solution (0.3%). A double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, repetitive-dose design was followed at nine centers for 3 months. Patients received either 1.0 mg of bitolterol or 1.5 mg of isoproterenol three times a day with a closed, intermittent-flow nebulization system. Pulmonary function was evaluated on four 8-hour office visits at approximately 30-day intervals. Efficacy was based on a 15% increase in FEV1 over baseline. Both medications resulted in bronchodilatation within 5 minutes, whereas nebulized bitolterol was statistically superior (p less than 0.05) to nebulized isoproterenol in terms of duration of action and area under the curve. The mean FEV1 response to bitolterol therapy remained greater than 15% over baseline for 5 to 8 hours on the four test days compared to 2 to 4.75 hours for isoproterenol therapy. Both medications were well tolerated. Adverse reactions were transient, and most were mild to moderate. Tremor was the most frequent side effect occurring in approximately 30% of the patients in both groups. There were no clinically significant laboratory changes or electrocardiographic findings. Nebulized bitolterol mesylate was found to be a safe and effective bronchodilator in steroid-dependent patients with asthma.

Controversy exists concerning possible tachyphylaxis of the acute bronchodilating effect of albuterol, especially with regard to the duration of its acute bronchodilating action. We evaluated 140 patients with bronchial asthma in a prospective double-blind controlled study of possible tachyphylaxis to albuterol aerosol as compared to isoproterenol aerosol. We demonstrated statistically significant tachyphylaxis with regard to duration of acute bronchodilating effect. We believe that this tachyphylaxis is not clinically significant because there was no tachyphylaxis with regard to peak bronchodilating effect and because the duration of bronchodilating effect remains significantly greater, both quantitatively and statistically, when compared to isoproterenol aerosol. Moreover, it appeared that most of the tachyphylaxis was present at four weeks of therapy. There was a small increment of tachyphylaxis after eight weeks of therapy, but no further increase in tachyphylaxis was demonstrated after 13 weeks of inhaled albuterol therapy. We therefore feel that clinically significant tachyphylaxis to inhaled albuterol aerosol must be quite unusual and that chronic therapy with inhaled albuterol aerosol is probably both safe and efficacious for bronchospastic disorders.